AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Turkey vs. Israel

80 21454
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,627 posts
Peasant

I think that it is ridiculous that even after a UN report vindicates Israel's actions, Turkey is still going to take its case to the International Criminal Courts, on trumped up charges that shouldn't even be admitted. The pitiful thing is that Turkey was Israel's closest Middle Eastern ally and now it looks like it could take decades to resolve this.

What are your opinions on the flotilla that occurred last year, and what do you think the end result of this spat between former allies will end up as?

  • 80 Replies
Armed_Blade
offline
Armed_Blade
1,482 posts
Shepherd

Okay. Here's my first thing to say: The UN said it was legal, but excessive.

At least, that's what the NY times thinks.

Second, Israel isn't too hot with protests.


weapons or bunkers.


That sucks, I'd hate for a Palestinian use wood to make a house or shelter. Or do any sort of basic carpentry.

There really is no "nice" solution.


That is the stance the US has taken in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our world image is the same, terrorists are still around and in the making, and all the while we've wasted money and killed people.
There's always a nice solution. Iran wouldn't be the islamic brain state if it weren't for us screwing with their government making them see us as evil influence.


But I don't want this to be an 'Is Israel Bad' debate.
As for what Turkey is doing, I have a few things to say.
Primarily, Turkey as an 'Israeli Ally' is a little over done, they are good economic buddies. Turkey sends a lot of water to Israel, which is where I think the friendship has its foundations.

Also, I don't think there's a lot of news to cover this, but Turkey's slowly pulling off from their Europe love [Maybe due to their economic uplift without admittance to the EU, maybe because the eastern half of Turkey is proportionately growing larger than the west]. Whatever the case, I think they're close to pulling off of Israel, especially if economic relations go south.

I personally think that what they are doing isn't wrong -- It's fine to judge. If it fails, it fails. Israel should have nothing to worry about since the UN loves them.
If this was all that had happened, I would say Israel should win the case and no action should be taken. Sadly, this isn't the case, it's a longstanding issue, and stuff is going to continue to rage unless it is quelled. For that, I think we need some inquiry on both sides, whether or not its fair.
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,627 posts
Peasant

since the UN loves them.


That is probably one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. The UN is one of the most anti-Israeli bodies ever. From 1947 to 1989 alone, they passed 131 documents condemning Israel, conveniently ignoring the fact that the Arabs were also involved. Also, the Goldstone Report, a complete piece of trash, which ignored that Hamas was firing off rockets from heavily civilized areas. The only friend that Israel has in the UN is the US's veto in the Security Council.
Armed_Blade
offline
Armed_Blade
1,482 posts
Shepherd

Condemning Israel doesn't say much, their official decisions usually stand with a good side with Israel.

AND UPDATE: Turkey has shut all ties.

zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,627 posts
Peasant

Condemning Israel doesn't say much


It says that the UN is one of the biggest groups in the anti-Israel camp. If it were not for the US veto, Israel would probably be under economic sanctions.
sprooschicken
offline
sprooschicken
1,143 posts
Nomad

Zakyman do I have your permission to dive in here? You know how I get...

Would you mind terribly telling me to shut up if I start emo-flaming?

zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,627 posts
Peasant

Would you mind terribly telling me to shut up if I start emo-flaming?


Yes, I will, and yes you have permission. Just try to stay cool
Armed_Blade
offline
Armed_Blade
1,482 posts
Shepherd

It says that the UN is one of the biggest groups in the anti-Israel camp. If it were not for the US veto, Israel would probably be under economic sanctions.


I had no idea the line was so thin. I thought they condemned Israel but as a whole never thought so much as to enforce anything. If all that keeps Israel from the brink of of the UN doing something is the US Veto, then this tells a lot.

So what this really means is that the only person left in the ballpark to defend Israel's actions is America. I'm sure I can even find Americans that would agree with me that our country is by no means peaceful on any standard and works a lot for its interests.

So if what you say is true, and that all world leaders except American and Israeli ones chose to defend Israel's actions, then why are you questioning Turkey's choice to make a case to the International Criminal Courts? Clearly on any democratic stance, the move makes sense, it is Turkey's (And apparently a lot of other nation's) way of getting heard passed the American Veto Hammer.
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,627 posts
Peasant

why are you questioning Turkey's choice to make a case to the International Criminal Courts?


Because one of the only reports that involves Israel and doesn't completely condemn it was released. The Palmer report states that while Israel might have used excessive force, they were allowed to hold a blockade. Also, no court could find anything wrong with self defense. There were bullet shells on board the ship that were not from Israeli guns, proving that the "humanitarians" were carrying contraband weaponry and pretty much looking for a fight.
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,627 posts
Peasant

Well, it looks like Turkey is on the war path! Tayyip Erdogan has expelled three high-level diplomats, and cut off pretty much all trade with Israel. The pathetic thing is how even with these outrageous and wholly undeserved sanctions, Turkish officials still expect all other contracts with Israel to be honored. Also, he said that Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese leader indicted for crimes against humanity, is a better person than Netanyahu. He also said that Bashir, who has an outstanding warrant by Interpol for his arrest, is welcome to attend a 57 country Islamic conference. Furthermore, Erdogan stated that he did not believe that the Sudanese military committed genocide in Darfur.


zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,627 posts
Peasant

Sorry for the double post, but in an effort to keep this thread honest, I want to tell you that I just realized that the haaretz.com article is about 2 years old...I literally just realized that, so disregard the first link, as it is outdated. Thanks!

Armed_Blade
offline
Armed_Blade
1,482 posts
Shepherd

"humanitarians" were carrying contraband weaponry and pretty much looking for a fight.


1) They were looking for a fight... So maybe 10-(lets give you the benefit of the doubt) 100 half-armed troopers looking on to invade Israel or soemthing?
2) My better guess -- They chose to pick up some contraband weaponry in case things went extremely sour, after all, they were going into Israel. Lets face it, Israel is uptight about national security if the incomers aren't Western, and there is no denying that.

Palmer report states that while Israel might have used excessive force, they were allowed to hold a blockade.


Good for the Palmer report, but I sort of see this like the US Govt. [Not the best thing to think of] What I mean is that the body of the UN and the Courts don't have to think like one another. Similarly, Congress can say something about the constitutionality of a law but it really doesn't mean something if the Supreme Court rules against it.
That being said, it is up to the Courts to decide who hit who first, who was in the process of 'self defense', etc.

After all, you see it as self defense. Yet what happened [From the most moderate viewpoint I can give] --

Is that there possibly was an illegal bunch of fake 'humanitarians' with contraband and illegal light weaponry out to falsely attack Israel. [Or so we can assume with the given intelligence of what they had on board and what went down]

But for some reason, Israel still chose to hop onto the boat on international waters and, in terms of international law, illegally confronted said group of 'evil terrorists'.

Although Israel was technically defending itself, this technologically advanced country chose to confront them before they entered into their own waters. [Which is still not nearly close enough to throw grenades or something]

This evidently turned out into a fight between the two sides, but Israel is the one that is wrongly hopping onto a boat with armored weapons denying access to a boat that has passengers claiming it is there to give humanitarian goods.


I think my position is obvious, but with that description, it is obvious that the UN Report regarding Israel's actions can be disregarded seeing as a group of people in a court could see this from a completely different angle.

At the very least, you could see Israel in the wrong for attempting anything on international waters.
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,627 posts
Peasant

This evidently turned out into a fight between the two sides, but Israel is the one that is wrongly hopping onto a boat with armored weapons denying access to a boat that has passengers claiming it is there to give humanitarian goods.


They were not attempting to deny the boat from entering port, rather diverting it to one under Israeli control so that the cargo may be searched for weaponry.

Is that there possibly was an illegal bunch of fake 'humanitarians' with contraband and illegal light weaponry


There is no &quotossibly." It was definite that there were contraband weaponry onboard, and that when the commandoes attempted to rappel onto the deck of the ship, then they were beaten with metal rods and other makeshift clubs.

My better guess -- They chose to pick up some contraband weaponry in case things went extremely sour, after all, they were going into Israel. Lets face it, Israel is uptight about national security if the incomers aren't Western, and there is no denying that.


That still is no reason to pick up contraband. What you are saying is the same as the US is uptight about national security if the incomers are from the Middle East! Israel is always tight about security when there is a chance that a flight could be blown up by a terrorist at any moment! If you have nothing to hide, then follow all of the laws, don't run a blockade, and allow your goods to get delivered though Israel! The Palestinians get their supplies, and the Israelis get a sense of comfort, knowing that they won't be attacked from Gaza because of this shipment. However, when you run the blockade, it is a win-win for the Pals because either the Israeli government upholds the blockade which they have the right to do, and are condemned for not letting a "humanitarian" mission into Gaza, or they allow the convoy to pass, and possibly give Hamas the weaponry they need.

[quote]The fact that the boarding was in international waters is irrelevant. The people on board the ship had stated verbally and in writing that their intent was to run the blockade. Israel could have boarded a ship in the Bahamas if it had announced that it was attempting to run the blockade on Gaza! As long as a ship is heading toward belligerent waters, it is legal for one of the belligerents to board the ship, or attempt to divert it to another port regardless of the location of said ship.
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,627 posts
Peasant

Wow. Quote fail. Anyways, to get a true version of the events that occurred that night, go to Youtube and watch Panorama: Death on the Med. Watch both parts and you will see what really happened.

Armed_Blade
offline
Armed_Blade
1,482 posts
Shepherd

They were not attempting to deny the boat from entering port, rather diverting it to one under Israeli control so that the cargo may be searched for weaponry.


Exactly. Why not wait until the boat is in Israeli waters? Israel's coast is not one of harsh waves, doing something to move the boat later would not have caused any sort of destruction. Maybe a little more time for it to reach the port but who cares.

There is no &quotossibly." It was definite that there were contraband weaponry onboard, and that when the commandoes attempted to rappel onto the deck of the ship, then they were beaten with metal rods and other makeshift clubs.


There are multiple accounts of what happened. You cannot just believe your news source. There was a boat and commandos and stuff went down. I can pull out as many Pro-Gaza sources as you can Pro-Israel.
What we CAN agree on is that bad stuff went down.
Also, just having the weaponry does not mean they aren't humanitarians, just adding that.

Furthermore, we never really got a release as to what was on that boat. Is it possible that Israel chose not to use Israeli weapons for this reason?

See, I'm not saying that happened, but it is possible.

What you are saying is the same as the US is uptight about national security if the incomers are from the Middle East!


Yes, but in the USA, there is no IDF. I mean, you still can't come in with a gun, sure.
But lets think about this, ...
Instead of releasing any actual proof as to what was on board.
All the IDF did was give us their word that they found guns and stuff.

But okay, sure, that's fine, they have that right.
Still, a little suspicious.



Lets keep this on topic: We know people got hit with stuff and the IDF says so and so. This happened outside Israel's legal jurisdiction and that in itself is no reason to throw commandos on board. If the commandos were attacked, then it sucks for them, that wouldn't help Israel's case seeing as the commandos weren't doing anything legit.
Also, I don't think breaking a blockage is an act of war, so therefore, they aren't belligerent waters.
But I'm not 100% on that.

If what you say is true, then sure, I'll buy it. But again, I'm trying to stay on topic. We clearly have our differences on Israel.
All that I'm saying is that it doesn't sound like the stupidest thing to do because the whole thing sounds a little fishy.
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,627 posts
Peasant

Also, I don't think breaking a blockage is an act of war


Attempting to run a blockade could be considered an act of war by Turkey considering the Mari Marvara flew the Turkish flag.

they aren't belligerent waters.


It is legal to attack a ship on the high seas if you are definitely sure that they are attempting to run a legally imposed blockade.

Instead of releasing any actual proof as to what was on board.
All the IDF did was give us their word that they found guns and stuff.


Again, when does the US do anything different?

There are multiple accounts of what happened. You cannot just believe your news source. There was a boat and commandos and stuff went down. I can pull out as many Pro-Gaza sources as you can Pro-Israel.


Yes, however I can pull out as many pieces of video evidence from various sources including that Youtube video to satisfy anyones' search for what really happened.

Why not wait until the boat is in Israeli waters? Israel's coast is not one of harsh waves, doing something to move the boat later would not have caused any sort of destruction. Maybe a little more time for it to reach the port but who cares.


Because there is no need for the boat to breach Israeli waters. It was perfectly legal to attack the ship, so they took the initiative. Had the ship not diverted to another port after multiple warnings, this wouldn't have happened and 9 people would still be alive today. However, Israel tried to stop the boat by using speed boats and concussion grenades, but the "humanitarians" threw them back and also threw bottles and stones at the commandoes.
Showing 16-30 of 80